ArrowsGreat news. Would not be suprised if Saudis had PAF advice after their experiance on the SAAB 2000 Erieye system. Also good news for both close allies to be operating it.
ArrowsGreat picture. Anyone know what role this looks like it is kitted out for?
ArrowsEr…ok. Much of what has been said has us going round in circles, and seems like massive long responses to what (I was led to believe) simple arguments. Now we have even got into the realm of PAF aircraft speculation, so I will leave you two to carry on just agreeing with yourselves. Good luck!
ArrowsVery good point Tiger II. Especially as Mexico and Brazil are already using SAAB radars
ArrowsPlease, a little less emotion.
Cheers,
TR1
“As far as I am aware the Indian AWACs are more capable than their Pak counterparts”
followed by
“Did I say otherwise?”
No emotion here at all, but why don’t you try and get your arguments aligned properly, or try not going back on what you say. Otherwise pretty hard debating anything with you really.
Arrowscheers,
TR1
On the subject, I am very curious if we will see an Indian S-400 sometime within the next 5-7 years, after initial production for the Russia is complete.
How is claiming Mistral/RBS-70 are more avdanced then Igla dubious? Do you genuinely know the difference between the systems or are you just saying this out of a misplaced sense of pride?
For Pakistans size, the PAF fleet is large enough. PAF has always assumed it will always be outnumbered by IAF.
Spyder range is 15km V SPADA 25km range. Assuming you can do math?
Both Erieye and Phalcon have strenghths and weaknesses. I would not say one is massively better then the other.
ArrowsThe shortage of 600 pilots, as mentioned previously, is for the entire IAF fleet and the overall allocation per GOI rules, which takes into account a full complement of fighter squadrons (39.5 allocated), plus full numbers of Transport & Helicopter raisings.
However, as things stand, the IAF has 32 fighter squadrons, and even fewer transports than it wants (which it is acquiring) so it balances out. Also, as Kramer & Samsara have mentioned, its the transport guys who are the most sought after by civvie street on account of their transport aircraft background & multi-engine experience. Hence 600/32 calculations etc are incorrect.
I disagree. You simply do not know if the IAF chief is referring to the shortage of pilots for the actual number of planes he has or for IAF full complementas per “GOI rules”. He does not state either in the article. Just a shortage of 600 full stop.
You cannot just make up the context of the qoute.
ArrowsPerfect.
But they are as obsolete as the Indian sets, in fact even more so. India’s Soviet LLTRs for instance, were acquired through the 1980’s along with other radar sets, and it is these that are already being replaced by Indra -2 (2D) gapfillers, Rohini 3D radars, Thales 3D GS-100 LLTRs and LLLLWRs (~40, 3D).
Also, upgrades can only take you so far. Pakistan’s TPS-43G’s (per Pakdef/Janes) were to be retired in 2010 itself, and these too were acquired in the mid-80s. While upgrades can add some new capabilities & even extend life, against modern ECM, they have limitations. This is the reason India chose not to upgrade its oldest Pechoras and is replacing them instead. (And in this case, I refer to the entire system, which has both radars & missiles).
Problem is & will be cost to acquire the numbers it needs. Ideally, Pak, should have started two decades back on laying the groundwork for its own radar program, at least the simpler ones. Even local integration with imported subassemblies would cut a lot of cost away.
But I have, but you haven’t understood my point.
The TPS-77s and TPS-43Gs (due to be retired by 2010 per http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/surv/adges.html) and even YLC-2s are not meant for low level surveillance. They are long range, medium altitude coverage radars!
Which is why countries worldwide (including Pak., India, and China) use LLTRs and LLLWRs & now Aerostats as well, to back up MPRs and HPRs.
Again, Arrows, for a civil discussion kindly, lets not have such rhetoric as its of no use.
But they are not “all in the pipeline”.
Let me restate. India has already ordered upwards of 100 radars which are being delivered every year! Case in point, look in this thread itself for the Andaman Command to receive a long range MPR while it already has a Rohini radar.
Here, let me break it up, of radars already in delivery:
Medium Power Radars: 15 from Israel
LLTRs: 19 from Thales (GS100) & 37 + 29 from DRDO-BEL (3D Rohini & 3D TCR – these are improved/modified variants of the 3D Search radar for the Akash)Total: 100 units already ordered
Apart from these, India has 3 Phalcons & 3 AEW & C on order. LLLWRs have also been ordered but lets even leave those out for now.
India also completed upgrades of its HPR THD-1955s and has now released a RFP for replacements by the time these retire in another decade and a halfs time, and is scouting for 4 more Aerostats to add to the two in service!
Each current Aerostat is equivalent to 30 LL Gapfillers against low level targets!! In effect, you can imagine the force multiplication effect of these systems at 15000 ft against fighters flying at 100 ft (30m in Lo-Lo-lo). A radar horizon of 300 km! Whereas, the typical mast mounted GBR (10 mtr mast) can see only till 35 km. Now see the effective coverage of a aerostat radar versus a GBR!
Sorry, but the IAF CAS made no such mention. He said 50% of the overall inventory was obsolete and would reduce to 20% by 2014, which clearly indicates the quantum of induction currently underway. Also, he made the point that even with the obsolescence, which of course is relative, the IAF was perfectly capable of fulfilling all its tasks. That itself indicates that the PAF is not really ahead. Note NAK Brownes comments as well of “we are ahead, Pak is catching up, but we’ll still be ahead”.
Furthermore, if one investigates this matter, thing is that the radar orders are not merely meant for the Indo-Pak border, for which thanks to the Aerostats and other systems, there is sufficient coverage.
These systems are being acquired for Central & South India, to create a seamless coverage India wide, but in a war time situation, to reach till these gaps, the PAF would have to actually somehow get through the layered defences at the border & many tens of Km inland including fighter cover, and even then, it would have to face the base defences around each base.
Its all relative vis a vis what your opponent fields.
If your opponent is armed with Hawks with iron bombs, then those 25 km SAMs are a very dangerous proposition.
However, if your opponent has Su-30 MKIs with a massive unrefuelled range, and with munitions like the Kh-59MK, Mirages with the Popeye missile, the 25 km bubble is not sufficient.
Furthermore, the SPADAS will be under attack from these:
http://www.deagel.com/news/India-Purchases-Harop-Loitering-Munition_n000006159.aspx
And India already has the Harpy & Kh-31 & Kh-25 ARMs as well.The main target will be the FCR (SPADA Fire Control Radars) as without them, the missile will be unguided.
How so? India operates the IGLA & Pakistan has various generations of ANZAs. Orders have continued to be placed, e.g.:http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/kbm.htm
India also has units Pakistan does not have equivalents to, e.g. SpyDer, ordered in 2008, with deliveries underway.
Yes, but the IAF will target the medium alt. SPADAs with a variety of assets, after which it can conduct medium alt. attacks without worry, thanks to the limited engagement ranges of the MANPADs and SAMs.
For instance, check the warload:
http://warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/su-30mki-exvayushakti2004-01.jpgProblem is Arrows, these have not yet been purchased, and will be very expensive to procure in effective numbers, given how many competing demands there are on the Pak. economy. The S-400 is of course, a completely different and very advanced system, currently only available from Russia.
Teer
You seem to be arguing my points using different argument all together, and going about what is a simple discussion in a long winded round about way (or maybe I am getting old!)
I will go through things one by one again
1) Pakistan will not just have Anza. As I have mentioned three times
now. RBS-70, Stinger and Mistral as well. Igla does simply not compare
2) If the above assets force Indian jets to fly higher, they have actually suuceeded in there role
3) No doubt India will try and use PGMs to stay out of range, but these are limited in number and in addition, they will at some point need to come in close to provide CAS
4) I have no doubt India has assets to try and take out Pakistans ADGE, but these can only succeed once PAF fighters have been put out of the equation. Of course IAF can attack “without worry”, but that is making a massive assumption that PAFs fighter fleet will just sit around
5) Ditto above regarding high level SAMs. As I mentioned PAF have a gap in this area, but this will be well covered by its interceptors
6) Incorrect on Spyder. Its range is actually shorter then that of SPADA 2000.
7) In correct about TPS-43, it is still in service, only being taken out of US service in 2010
8) Pakistan’s 1980s vintage Siemans sets have bene upgraded, unless we know the extent of these upgrades I would not make a comparison, just as I would not compare a Dutch F-16MLU to a Dutch Block 15 F-16
9) The point you make on low level coverage is a valid one, but you seem to still overlook the fact this was the very reason AWACs have been purchased. As I said the TPS-77/Erieye combi will easily look after low level coverage
10) As of now India had a total of just 3 AWACs being delivered and 2 on order. No more. That is simply not enough for a country of Indias size, and it seems future coverage will depend on their own home grown system. I dont think we can make any guesses on this yet. This does not compare well to Pakistan (a 5th of Indias size) and its 8 various systems being delivered this year. In terms of AWACs coverage that is the story
Finally as we are aware, Indian purchases tend to be very well publicised, whilst Pakistani aqqusitions we only tend to hear about after the deal is done, this is especially the case with Chinese weapons. I would not count on the fact that there are no additional plans being made of PAF ADGE….
ArrowsI dont see any direct accusation of bribes, but anyway, lets try and stay on topic?
I persoanlly doubt this is a PAF bird, but am wondering who else has deemed the SAAB 2000 to meet their requirements as opposed to the other aircraft on offer to carry the radar
ArrowsHe said “shortage” of 600 pilots not that the IAF only has 600 pilots..and anyway the 600 number is not just for jet pilots.If anything jet pilots are the most sought after positions..I would guess most of the shortages are in the less glamorous transport area.
I am aware the shortage is 600 and 600 is not the overall figure.
The shortage may well be in jet fighters we dont know. IAF pilots not good enough in training are streamed to transports/choppers, so people dont automatically have a choice where they are assigned. It is dependent on skill.
ArrowsAnd that would be close enough to monitor Israel. So even one Erieye fills a gap they really, really want to fill. (And one that the Israeli’s really, really do not want them to fill…)
Not really. One Erieye is very patchy coverage at best.
ArrowsNo it would not or defence spending is no issue. For 135.000 ISAF soldiers you have to fly-in ~27000 tons per day or over 500 C-17A flights per day. 😎
Well, that pretty much ends that debate….
ArrowsThere is no need for a p*ssing contest to occur as long as the tone of the conversation is civil & proceeds with the agreement that its knowledge we are after. Given that, I think a productive discussion is entirely possible, as long as we avoid statements like “Although I doubt you would let that stop getting in the way”, which tend to vitiate the tone & tenor. Sticking to facts should be fine & you could post this in the other thread. Unfortunately, due to time commitments I really cant debate multiple places so just check the one.
Now, coming to the topic at hand, my information is not incorrect. The point to look into is how the ADGES is structured & what its intended components are, and that will clarify my statements about the MPDR’s.
For instance,
are not MPDR equivalents, and nor is
These are long range & high power radars (though many countries still use the designation medium power to contrast against even more powerful systems, but either ways the usual range is around ~300+ km for a fighter class target operating at medium/high altitudes), intended to give a nation, medium level coverage.
The YLC-2 for instance is a standard L Band long range search radar, used as an EW (Early Warning) sensor. Its anti stealth claims apart, it operates in the L Band which is fairly well known to RF engineers both on the pro & anti side and its power o/p is credible but not as substantial as that of modern day AESAs used for BMD.
Eitherways, HPR & MPR and even AEW & C such as the Erieye being procured by Pak, need to be backed up by a number (unless one is lucky to be in flat terrain, geography wise, throughout) of LLTRs (Low Level Transportable Radars) which in the 80’s would usually be 2D. These are also referred to as Gapfillers.
Standard characteristics are that they are more mobile & compact than the 3D MPR/HPR designs & are less expensive! But they have a very useful and vital role.
In the Indo-Pak context both nations employ substantial number of LLTRs to plug holes which the MPR/HPRs cannot observe (terrain limitations due to line of sight & placement of MPR/HPR and due to limited scan angles).
In India’s case, these are the P-12/18, Indra-1 and now the Indra-2 radars, and now, the Thales GS-100 & an even lighter, more compact local LLLWR (3D). More LLTRs specifically for hilly terrain are also being procured.
In Pakistans case, these were the Siemens MPDR acquired in the 80’s, and which are now 20-30 years old, with the oldest from 1980 at 30. These are being refurbished locally in Pakistan.
So you see, these radars are not of the same type that you referenced or even equivalent. Their role in wartime is vital as they can be quickly used to plug holes caused by SEAD/DEAD suppression attacks against the more static, less mobile high power radars.
They need to be relocated quickly to plug ingress/egress routes which high flying AEW&C cannot get thanks to LOS blockages. Furthermore, many LLTR designs nowadays come with more effective clutter rejection and are optimized for low flying aircraft. Even an AEW&C can lose sight/track of a low flying target against difficult terrain.
In Paks case, so far Pak has acquired 10 YLC-6 (2D) radars from China for the LLTR role & these are not even a third of the original inventory of MPDRs (45km/90km).
So, the original point remains valid, that these systems are already quite old, and Pakistan is going to face a challenge in coming days, trying to meet its requirement for LLTRs/LLLWRs as it does not have a domestic radar manufacturing capability, and replacements are expensive.
The SAM systems mentioned above also need to be looked at in context.
The maximum slant range for the best SAM in the above inventory (SPADA) is of the order of 20-30 km. Namely, these are point defense systems at best and cannot interdict platforms using Long Range Munitions. Furthermore, the SPADA is a SARH system and will be subject to ARM attacks.
What Pakistan needs, in order to actually make up for its lack of a substantial & high end fighter fleet are strategic SAM systems, with extensive ranges & high mobility like the S-3XX series. These are also likely to be unavailable to Pakistan or fairly expensive, leading to limited numbers.
India’s procurement already takes this into account & hence the high numbers already contracted for (~100 radars not including SAM systems), many more including SAMs, an additional 30 if Ind. Army AD is factored in & then are IN aerostat orders in progress.
Plus, to harmonize all three services Comms, the DCN (Defence Communication Network is in place).
Furthermore, India is now implementing a massive coastal surveillance project with radars at over 46 locations & linked by a new information grid.
http://www.zeenews.com/news622341.htmlThese will be backed up by IN aerostat radars. 3 will be deployed, with each having a radius of 500 km & with the already deployed IAF aerostats covering the coastline in depth.
I am glad we can be civil.
On radars
Some of the Siemans sets are late 80s vintage and have been upgraded. Nowhere nears as obsolete as what India is using right now.
They have also been upgraed.
Pakistan can look to US and China for repalcements.
You have still not covered off the fact that TPS-77s/TPS-63s and TPS-43s linked into AWACs will more then make up for any gaps.
But guess that inconveniant point would get in the way.
India’s plans are no doubt grand, but these are all “in the pipeline”.
As of now, India has woeful radar coverage with many obsolete units. As admitted by the IAF chief of staff.
On to SAMS.
I clearly mentioned SPADA 2000 is medium end. 60km detection range and 25km missile range is certainly not “short range”.
You also completely overlooked that Pakistan’s MANPADs systems are in a different league to India’s altogether. In fact a generation ahead.
RBS-70s cued by Giraffe radars and Stingers and Mistral with armoured formations means low level flying by the enemy may have to be avoided.
You are completely right, at the higher end of SAMs PAF has a gap. It has traditionally relied on its fighter fleet to make up for this. However, it is looking at the HQ-9, which is a Chinese S-300/400 copy.
ArrowsThe IAF is short of 500-600 pilots across the fleet but this needs to take into account that the IAF has a stated allotment of ~40 combat squadrons but is right now at 32, even considering that the transport & chopper squadrons are at full allocated inventory (which they arent). So the actual pilots to airframes number balances out. Of course, as more airframes are added again, the number of pilots required will increase, and which is why the IAF a couple of years back, started working on increasing the training infrastructure to produce more pilots per year, even considering that the attrition currently is below par (positive attrition) but this may not necessarily be the case once the economy picks up even more five years from now.
Teer
I think it is fairly safe to assume the IAF chief is talking about a current shortage not a shortage IF the IAF had full squadron strength.
600 pilots divided by 32 squadrons = 19 pilots per squadron!!!!!!
That is a massive shortage, I would be suprised if that leaves the IAF with barely one pilot per plane.
As you are aware, this will be a massive weakness is aircraft utilisation and sortie rate.
ArrowsIs that an actual FACT?
Sign In
